Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
rhyknow

Iran welcomes US nuclear report

170 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

rhyknow

Iran has welcomed a major US intelligence report which suggests its government is not currently trying to develop nuclear weapons.

The latest National Intelligence Estimate says it is now believed Iran stopped its weapons programme in 2003.

Tehran has always maintained its nuclear programme is being developed purely for peaceful purposes.

But the US and other Western powers say Iran is trying to build a nuclear weapons capability.

Iran is currently under UN Security Council and unilateral US sanctions.

But the BBC News website's world affairs correspondent, Paul Reynolds, says the question of sanctions remains active because Iran is still defying Security Council calls for it to suspend uranium enrichment.

The standoff is now likely to continue indefinitely but at a lower temperature, he says.

----

Full Story & Source

----

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
henrychalder

If Israel isn't happy with Iran then they should take the matter up with them and not involve the UK and America. Men and women join the army to defend their homelands, not to join up and fight for Israeli interests. Its a case of the tail wagging the dog, its about time the tail must be docked for the good and well being of the dog.

The National Security Adviser to the White House, Steve Hadley was responsible for the lies spread about Iraq with Hadley's claim of 'yellow crusted Uranium' and that Iraq was on course for weapons of mass destruction, now this idiot is making similar claims about Iran. Why hasn't this neo-conservative at least been given the sack?

The American and people in the UK should wake up and remove the two faced 'shapeshifters' from the corridors of power. They have other agenda's that are not for the people they govern

Edited by henrychalder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
If Israel isn't happy with Iran then they should take the matter up with them and not involve the UK and America. Men and women join the army to defend their homelands, not to join up and fight for Israeli interests.

I agree ..the zionists like netanyahu are running around comparing Ahmidnijad as hitler...if they are so paranoid let them deal with them...how long are we gonna treat israel like a 59 year old teenager who never moved out?...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
henrychalder

Ahmidnijad, said once in one of his speeches, that the treatment of Jews during and up to the second world war was the fault of Europeans, so why didn't the Europeans give the Jews land in Europe instead of Palestine?

He has a point that is difficult to argue against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc

View the situation correctly: step out of the picture and look in from without and you will find that it is the Arabs who HATE the Jews. It is the Arabs who HATE America. It is the Arabs who HATE. Hate is not the fault of the hated...it is always the fault of the Hater.

Nukes? No nukes? So we are supposed to believe that the CIA reports and such regarding Iraq were woefully inept...but at the same time we are supposed to praise them for being so 'right on the money' about Irans Nukes?

Come on people...wakeup already...smell the coffee...use your common sense...

....uh, never mind (answered own question...there is no 'common sense')

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coughymachine
...if they are so paranoid let them deal with them...

And herein lies one of the many ironies surrounding this growing sense of anti-Iranianism.

Although I'm sure you didn't mean to, the wording of your post suggests an implied acceptance that Israel has the 'right' to deal with Iran if it perceives Iran as a threat. Imagine the furore if anyone were to suggest that Iran haa the 'right' to deal with Israel if it perceives them as a threat. Imagine what would happen if Iran launched a pre-emptive strike against an Israeli military installation citing unsubstantiated claims that it was being used to develop nuclear weapons.

Didn't George Orwell once write to the effect that all men are equal, but some are more equal than others?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
View the situation correctly: step out of the picture and look in from without and you will find that it is the Arabs who HATE the Jews. It is the Arabs who HATE America. It is the Arabs who HATE. Hate is not the fault of the hated...it is always the fault of the Hater.

Nukes? No nukes? So we are supposed to believe that the CIA reports and such regarding Iraq were woefully inept...but at the same time we are supposed to praise them for being so 'right on the money' about Irans Nukes?

Come on people...wakeup already...smell the coffee...use your common sense...

....uh, never mind (answered own question...there is no 'common sense')

your so wrapped up in the fervor of islamo-paranoia...whats Iran done to anyone?...i am awake and the coffees all gone...you just want more ethnic cleansing sponsored by bush and co....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
And herein lies one of the many ironies surrounding this growing sense of anti-Iranianism.

Although I'm sure you didn't mean to, the wording of your post suggests an implied acceptance that Israel has the 'right' to deal with Iran if it perceives Iran as a threat.

If iran attacked israel it would be all out war...but the israelis have no right to go looking for a fight while their crazy uncle bush backs them up....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
your so wrapped up in the fervor of islamo-paranoia...whats Iran done to anyone?...i am awake and the coffees all gone...you just want more ethnic cleansing sponsored by bush and co....

Your hatred of the Jews and Bush is yours...you own it. If you think the Arabs don't hate the Jews...you aren't listening to what they are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn

am i reading it wrong, Iran stopped enriching in 2003, 4 years ago, and since then have restarted enriching uranium, they are enriching more uranium now than they ever have in the past, they're trying to build a missile delivery system, so i agree the US report is good if we where still living in the year 2003, but seeing we're living in 2007/08 and Iran is boasting on the world stage it has 3000 centrifuges and is still expanding its capability, we'll turn a blind eye to all that and just concentate on what happened in 2003 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ships-cat

Utter tosh. Europe didn't "give" Israel anything; when Israel called itself into being in 1947, it was at the behest of the indiginous palestinian Jews who could no longer trust any word power to look after their interests or protect them from increasingly violent attacks by the Arabs in palestine. (recall that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time was a fervent Nazi supporter and had expressed enthusiasm for the Holocaust).

This business of "why don't the Europeans offer a home to the Jews" is a cynical piece of misdirection. It misses the point that Jerusalem is a holy city to the Jews, as is the land upon which it stands.

Would you like to suggest that Muslims transfer their pilgrimage site from Mecca to - say - Kabul ? Or Denver ?

Meow Purr.

[edit] - darnit - in the time it took me to write this post (which was a response to #4), y'all had written dozens of posts.

Edited by ships-cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
am i reading it wrong, Iran stopped enriching in 2003, 4 years ago, and since then have restarted enriching uranium, they are enriching more uranium now than they ever have in the past, they're trying to build a missile delivery system, so i agree the US report is good if we where still living in the year 2003, but seeing we're living in 2007/08 and Iran is boasting on the world stage it has 3000 centrifuges and is still expanding its capability, we'll turn a blind eye to all that and just concentate on what happened in 2003 ?

Exactly! :cry:

Now adding Stevewinn to Friends list!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coughymachine
am i reading it wrong, Iran stopped enriching in 2003, 4 years ago, and since then have restarted enriching uranium, they are enriching more uranium now than they ever have in the past, they're trying to build a missile delivery system, so i agree the US report is good if we where still living in the year 2003, but seeing we're living in 2007/08 and Iran is boasting on the world stage it has 3000 centrifuges and is still expanding its capability, we'll turn a blind eye to all that and just concentate on what happened in 2003 ?

I don't know the answer to the following question; I'm not trying to catch you or anyone else out, I just want to know.

Iran has never been found guilty of breaking the NPT, despite the latest report's claim that it stopped an alleged weaponisation programme in 2003 (my point being, if there was incontravertible proof, why weren't they sanctioned?). Iran has maintained it is looking to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. You've spoken above about Iran's uranium enrichment programme and about its 3000 centrifuges. Aren't both consistent with the development of a nuclear energy capability, or is there something specific about either that proves Iran is pursuing a weaponisation programme?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn
I don't know the answer to the following question; I'm not trying to catch you or anyone else out, I just want to know.

Iran has never been found guilty of breaking the NPT, despite the latest report's claim that it stopped an alleged weaponisation programme in 2003 (my point being, if there was incontravertible proof, why weren't they sanctioned?). Iran has maintained it is looking to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. You've spoken above about Iran's uranium enrichment programme and about its 3000 centrifuges. Aren't both consistent with the development of a nuclear energy capability, or is there something specific about either that proves Iran is pursuing a weaponisation programme?

Your best reading the UN resolution 1747

Also notice how most of the resolutions are proposed by the EU 3,

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc8980.doc.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited

3000 centrifuges is not many and rumour has it that they arent working properly?...the Iranian nuclear weapons program is with saddams WMDs..in a space dump...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn
3000 centrifuges is not many and rumour has it that they arent working properly?...the Iranian nuclear weapons program is with saddams WMDs..in a space dump...

Saddam did have WMD, but not in 2003 but right the way through the 1990's the UN destroyed it, but he did have a programe once-upon-a-time

I guess the trouble was the UN, US and UK done a better job than we thought,

Edited by stevewinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coughymachine
Your best reading the UN resolution 1747

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coughymachine
Saddam did have WMD, but not in 2003 but right the way through the 1990's the UN destroyed it, but he did have a programe once-upon-a-time

Out of interest, do you think it's acceptable for the US, UK et al to have WMD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stevewinn
Why?

No reason, but i thought you was looking for answers?

Yes i do believe its acceptable that the US, France, and the United Kindgom have nuclear weapons,

Edited by stevewinn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ins0mniac
Out of interest, do you think it's acceptable for the US, UK et al to have WMD?

I do.

In fact Saddam having WMDS wasn't as much of an issue until he invaded Kuwait over oil and used them. That's the whole point of why the U.N put sanctions against him in the first place.

Edited by Ins0mniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong
Your hatred of the Jews and Bush is yours...you own it. If you think the Arabs don't hate the Jews...you aren't listening to what they are saying.

So Bush is a two faced lier and back staber, as he backs and supports the Israelis yet walks hand in hand with the Arabs. So who do you support ? Both. It's pretty crass of you to claim someone "hates" the Jews and then just throw Bush's name in there for comfort. I can't stand Bush in the least, so that must mean I have something against the Jews? What a daft statement.

The C.I.A. was right about Iraq, they said he was not a threat as I have showen and proven in the past. The info that you heard was cherry picked by the bush admin to propegate there needs. The Bush admin put a spin on that and blaimed the lack of no wmd's on bad intel, WRONG. Cherry picked info. I have no reason not to believe the C.I.A. is right when they say Iran has no nuclear weapons program even if the report is from 2003. You go ahead and believe what you want though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coughymachine
No reason, but i thought you was looking for answers?

I asked you whether Iran's uranium enrichment programme or the fact that it had a reported 3000 centrifuges was incontravertible evidence of a nuclear weaponisation programme and only a nuclear weaponisation programme. Or, put another way, could both equally be part of the development of a peaceful nuclear energy programme?

The document you linked to didn't answer this, or if it did I missed it and would appreciate you pointing it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coughymachine
I do.

In fact Saddam having WMDS wasn't as much of an issue until he invaded Kuwait over oil and used them. That's the whole point of why the U.N put sanctions against him in the first place.

So, Iraq's WMD wasn't a problem until it invaded Kuwait, but it's okay for the US, the UK and its coalition members to have them, notwithstanding the fact that it has now invaded Iraq?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlimited
Your hatred of the Jews and Bush is yours...you own it. If you think the Arabs don't hate the Jews...you aren't listening to what they are saying.

my hatred of jews and bush?... :blink: your ready for the next shock and awe; while you drink your beer and call out armchair commands....sorry the wars over..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ins0mniac
View the situation correctly: step out of the picture and look in from without and you will find that it is the Arabs who HATE the Jews. It is the Arabs who HATE America. It is the Arabs who HATE. Hate is not the fault of the hated...it is always the fault of the Hater.

Have you ever stopped and wondered WHY so many Arabs hate?

I suppose you think it's some vague thing about Arab racism or hating their way of life, freedom etc.

But I think the fact that many of Arab families had lived for generations in the area that suddenly belonged to the Jews and became Israel in 1947. Tensions rose and fights between the groups began and many arabs decided to flee to Palestine. Thus we have the Palestinian refugees. (Whom the denial of return or repatriation by Israel has been a big sticking point in peace talks btw).

But then, to top it off, we have collective punishment. Some of the Arabs, angry at the situation, unfortunately became radicalised terrorists. Israel responds by destroying whole villages or families that these terrorists belong to.

If your family had lived somewhere for generations and then it was suddenly in control of another group, you would probably be a little angry as well. If your villages were constantly being destroyed as collective punishment for terrorist acts caused by extremists in your society, you may be even a little more angry.

Utter tosh. Europe didn't "give" Israel anything; when Israel called itself into being in 1947, it was at the behest of the indiginous palestinian Jews who could no longer trust any word power to look after their interests or protect them from increasingly violent attacks by the Arabs in palestine. (recall that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time was a fervent Nazi supporter and had expressed enthusiasm for the Holocaust).

I thought the newly formed U.N gave them Israel.

Also, the Arabs may well have become increasingly violent, but Jewish terrorist groups were also blowing up hotels and killing British citizens at the time weren't they?

The King David Hotel bombing (July 22, 1946) was a bombing attack against the British government of Palestine by members of Irgun — a militant Zionist organization.

The attack, initially ordered by Menachem Begin the head of the Irgun and later Prime Minister of Israel, had members of the Irgun, dressed as Arabs, set off a bomb in the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which had been the base for the British Secretariat, the military command and a branch of the Criminal Investigation Division (police). 91 people were killed, most of them staff of the secretariat and the hotel: 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 other. Around 45 people were injured. The attack was commanded by Yosef Avni and Yisrael Levi.[1]

Wikipedia - King David Hotel Bombing

This business of "why don't the Europeans offer a home to the Jews" is a cynical piece of misdirection. It misses the point that Jerusalem is a holy city to the Jews, as is the land upon which it stands.

I don't think religious ideas are a good method for defining international relations, especially when it comes to nation building. I'd hate to see what certain Muslim groups would be justified in doing if that were the case. Nor is the fact that a group had control of land over a thousand years ago. If so, Australia and the U.S needs to urgently give full control of their countries to their native people as their land was taken merely hundreds of years ago.

This business of "why don't the Europeans offer a home to the Jews" is a cynical piece of misdirection. It misses the point that Jerusalem is a holy city to the Jews, as is the land upon which it stands. Would you like to suggest that Muslims transfer their pilgrimage site from Mecca to - say - Kabul ? Or Denver ?

I'm not entirely sure of the history of Mecca, but I thought they were already there and didn't need to take control away from anyone's homeland.

Edited by Ins0mniac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.